1. Field of Invention
The present device relates to sporting goods and more particularly to a lure retrieving device for releasing snagged fishing tackle.
2. Prior Art Description
As a general proposition, it is well recognized in the art of sport fishing that most bodies of fishable waters are infested with ensnarling vegetation, debris, timber and other obstructions upon which hooks, lures, plugs and other tackle may, from time to time, become embedded or snagged during the fishing process.
Traditionally accepted procedures for releasing snagged fishing tackle include: cutting bait and taking one's losses; or the expenditure of time, patience and effort in an attempt to free the snagged lure and associated tackle. While this latter course of action is somewhat frustrating, it is the alternate which nearly all sport fishermen elect to take although it bears certain risks of loss of the snagged tackle. Quite frequently, this latter process involves relocation of the boat or fisherman to a location behind the point of ensnarement. Once so positioned, the angler places or disposes a lure retrieving device about the fishing line and allows it to slide by gravity down to the front of the caught tackle. Most of these devices are dependent upon the weight of the lure retriever and its impact in the vicinity of the snagged lure to force it backward and free from the object upon which it is caught. The additional weight and impact of the lure retriever makes the area of the line most nearly adjacent to the caught hook much more responsive to up-down or left-right jerking movements by the angler. Such movements are often necessary to free the ensnarled tackle.
Various forms of lure retrievers and other tackle accessories have been proposed in the prior art to avoid the loss of time, money and patience so often experienced by the angler when his fishing line has become so entangled. As previously explained, most sport fishermen feel that they must make a good-faith effort to release their caught fishing tackle since such rigs are expensive and time consuming to prepare. Additionally, fishing is a pleasure sport and a favorite lure to most anglers has an intrensic value far in excess of its original purchase price or replacement cost. Further, the angler must, if he elects to cut his line and take his losses, expend additional time and money to install and rig a new fishing line which diverts time away from the fishing process itself.
To solve this perplexing problem of the great sport of fishing, numerous devices have been proposed by the prior art. These devices have been of various geometric configurations, sizes and clamping means to fasten to the fishing line. Many, if not all, of these devices have been met with only limited degrees of success. By and large, they have been impractical or unsatisfactory because of their weight, size or complexity made them too cumbersome to store and handle in an ordinary tackle box. Additionally, they were difficult and time consuming to apply and release as well as generally inefficient or unreliable for their intended purpose. Further, the angler not only experienced the unnecessary loss of valuable fishing tackle, but incurred loss of the expensive lure retriever as well. On some occasions the cost of the lure retrieving device was far in excess of the lost lure and associated tackle. Experience has taught that the majority of these devices were often incapable of rendering the desired performance because of inadequate design, complexity of component parts, operator error or simple ineffectiveness. Often times, these devices were not free to travel in tight spaces, lacked mobility, and became entangled upon themselves or their control lines, or required a multiplicity of hands to be applied, operated and released. Wong, U.S. Pat. No. 4,057,925 dated Nov. 15, 1977, gives a detailed explanation, history and summary of the prior art devices, which for purposes of brevity, will not be herein repeated. However, it is firmly believed that none of the prior art devices have satisfactorily performed as a commercial success and economic reality because they were too expensive, cumbersome or ineffective to achieve widespread acceptance and utilization by sport fishermen. This is especially true when the prior art device is more expensive than the snagged lure and is just as susceptible to loss on its first use by the angler. Further, the complexities of design of the prior art devices made them so time consuming to install that they could not be reliable.